An ex-politician called for the Government to bring back the death penalty.
Even before the biography of the killer was known or his links to outside groups confirmed, a singer attacked the officials who were supposedly too politically correct to call him an Islamic extremist: "In modern Britain everyone seems petrified to officially say what we all say in private. Politicians tell us they are unafraid, but they are never the victims. How easy to be unafraid when one is protected from the line of fire. The people have no such protections."
Each one of those statements is both emotionally charged and practically pointless.
The death penalty? Hard to see why it would deter a suicide bomber who wanted to die anyway.
The "internment of thousands of terror suspects"? Britain tried to fight the Irish Republican Army that way, ordering a mass arrest of nearly 350 "terror suspects" in 1971. The result was catastrophic: Real damage was done to the credibility of the British state and the legal system in Northern Ireland, since many of those interned didn't have IRA links. The mass arrest radicalised more people and led to a sharp increase in violence.
As for charges of political correctness, most British politicians try not to name killers or causes until they are known, which seems like a good rule. And when they are known, they are named.
Theresa May, then the Home Secretary and now the Prime Minister, gave a speech in 2015 denouncing the "hatred, bigotry and ignorance" of Islamic extremism.
Nor is it remotely true that British politicians are "never the victims".
On the contrary, they are often targets. During the referendum campaign last year, a white supremacist murdered Jo Cox, a British MP. She was hardly "protected from the line of fire".
The politicians who were victims of IRA violence in years past weren't either.
Far from solving any problems, the purveyors of dramatic solutions or divisive slogans don't help the victims, don't help their families, don't help their communities.
They don't prevent future attacks either.
They do increase hysteria, amplify anger and exacerbate social division.
Which is what terrorists want to achieve, especially the terrorists inspired by anti-Western Islamic radicalism, an ideology that wants to bring down democracy, undermine the rule of law and cause a political crisis.
The terrorists want to foster antagonism and partisanship.
They want to inspire more violence. That's why they set off bombs.
Look back through history, and it's clear that the only solutions to terrorism are less dramatic, less immediate, more long-term.
They involve things such as better policing and more international co-operation, as well as the forthright teaching of British values in British schools.
They require community solidarity, things like the mass vigils that have been taking place in Manchester, or the offers of tea, blankets and bedrooms extended to people stranded by the attack.
These are policies and actions that work: They keep communities united, increase solidarity, discourage future bombers.
But they won't satisfy the egos of people who need to prove to the world that their emotions are stronger than yours.
